SequencingPipeline#detach_request_from_batch has approx 7 statements Open
def detach_request_from_batch(batch, request)
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
A method with Too Many Statements
is any method that has a large number of lines.
Too Many Statements
warns about any method that has more than 5 statements. Reek's smell detector for Too Many Statements
counts +1 for every simple statement in a method and +1 for every statement within a control structure (if
, else
, case
, when
, for
, while
, until
, begin
, rescue
) but it doesn't count the control structure itself.
So the following method would score +6 in Reek's statement-counting algorithm:
def parse(arg, argv, &error)
if !(val = arg) and (argv.empty? or /\A-/ =~ (val = argv[0]))
return nil, block, nil # +1
end
opt = (val = parse_arg(val, &error))[1] # +2
val = conv_arg(*val) # +3
if opt and !arg
argv.shift # +4
else
val[0] = nil # +5
end
val # +6
end
(You might argue that the two assigments within the first @if@ should count as statements, and that perhaps the nested assignment should count as +2.)
SequencingPipeline#is_read_length_consistent_for_batch? has approx 6 statements Open
def is_read_length_consistent_for_batch?(batch) # rubocop:todo Metrics/AbcSize
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
A method with Too Many Statements
is any method that has a large number of lines.
Too Many Statements
warns about any method that has more than 5 statements. Reek's smell detector for Too Many Statements
counts +1 for every simple statement in a method and +1 for every statement within a control structure (if
, else
, case
, when
, for
, while
, until
, begin
, rescue
) but it doesn't count the control structure itself.
So the following method would score +6 in Reek's statement-counting algorithm:
def parse(arg, argv, &error)
if !(val = arg) and (argv.empty? or /\A-/ =~ (val = argv[0]))
return nil, block, nil # +1
end
opt = (val = parse_arg(val, &error))[1] # +2
val = conv_arg(*val) # +3
if opt and !arg
argv.shift # +4
else
val[0] = nil # +5
end
val # +6
end
(You might argue that the two assigments within the first @if@ should count as statements, and that perhaps the nested assignment should count as +2.)
SequencingPipeline#is_flowcell_type_consistent_for_batch? has approx 6 statements Open
def is_flowcell_type_consistent_for_batch?(batch) # rubocop:todo Metrics/AbcSize
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
A method with Too Many Statements
is any method that has a large number of lines.
Too Many Statements
warns about any method that has more than 5 statements. Reek's smell detector for Too Many Statements
counts +1 for every simple statement in a method and +1 for every statement within a control structure (if
, else
, case
, when
, for
, while
, until
, begin
, rescue
) but it doesn't count the control structure itself.
So the following method would score +6 in Reek's statement-counting algorithm:
def parse(arg, argv, &error)
if !(val = arg) and (argv.empty? or /\A-/ =~ (val = argv[0]))
return nil, block, nil # +1
end
opt = (val = parse_arg(val, &error))[1] # +2
val = conv_arg(*val) # +3
if opt and !arg
argv.shift # +4
else
val[0] = nil # +5
end
val # +6
end
(You might argue that the two assigments within the first @if@ should count as statements, and that perhaps the nested assignment should count as +2.)
Complex method SequencingPipeline#is_flowcell_type_consistent_for_batch? (25.5) Open
def is_flowcell_type_consistent_for_batch?(batch) # rubocop:todo Metrics/AbcSize
if (batch.requests.size == 0) || (batch.requests.first.request_metadata.nil?)
# No requests selected or the pipeline doesn't contain metadata to check
return true
end
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
Flog calculates the ABC score for methods. The ABC score is based on assignments, branches (method calls), and conditions.
You can read more about ABC metrics or the flog tool
Complex method SequencingPipeline#is_read_length_consistent_for_batch? (25.5) Open
def is_read_length_consistent_for_batch?(batch) # rubocop:todo Metrics/AbcSize
if (batch.requests.size == 0) || (batch.requests.first.request_metadata.nil?)
# No requests selected or the pipeline doesn't contain metadata to check
return true
end
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
Flog calculates the ABC score for methods. The ABC score is based on assignments, branches (method calls), and conditions.
You can read more about ABC metrics or the flog tool
SequencingPipeline#is_read_length_consistent_for_batch? calls 'read_length_list.size' 2 times Open
return true if read_length_list.size == 0
# There are some requests that don't have the read_length_attribute
return false if read_length_list.size != batch.requests.size
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
Duplication occurs when two fragments of code look nearly identical, or when two fragments of code have nearly identical effects at some conceptual level.
Reek implements a check for Duplicate Method Call.
Example
Here's a very much simplified and contrived example. The following method will report a warning:
def double_thing()
@other.thing + @other.thing
end
One quick approach to silence Reek would be to refactor the code thus:
def double_thing()
thing = @other.thing
thing + thing
end
A slightly different approach would be to replace all calls of double_thing
by calls to @other.double_thing
:
class Other
def double_thing()
thing + thing
end
end
The approach you take will depend on balancing other factors in your code.
SequencingPipeline#is_flowcell_type_consistent_for_batch? calls 'flowcell_type_list.size' 2 times Open
return true if flowcell_type_list.size == 0
# There are some requests that don't have the requested_flowcell_type
return false if flowcell_type_list.size != batch.requests.size
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
Duplication occurs when two fragments of code look nearly identical, or when two fragments of code have nearly identical effects at some conceptual level.
Reek implements a check for Duplicate Method Call.
Example
Here's a very much simplified and contrived example. The following method will report a warning:
def double_thing()
@other.thing + @other.thing
end
One quick approach to silence Reek would be to refactor the code thus:
def double_thing()
thing = @other.thing
thing + thing
end
A slightly different approach would be to replace all calls of double_thing
by calls to @other.double_thing
:
class Other
def double_thing()
thing + thing
end
end
The approach you take will depend on balancing other factors in your code.
SequencingPipeline#is_read_length_consistent_for_batch? calls 'batch.requests' 4 times Open
if (batch.requests.size == 0) || (batch.requests.first.request_metadata.nil?)
# No requests selected or the pipeline doesn't contain metadata to check
return true
end
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
Duplication occurs when two fragments of code look nearly identical, or when two fragments of code have nearly identical effects at some conceptual level.
Reek implements a check for Duplicate Method Call.
Example
Here's a very much simplified and contrived example. The following method will report a warning:
def double_thing()
@other.thing + @other.thing
end
One quick approach to silence Reek would be to refactor the code thus:
def double_thing()
thing = @other.thing
thing + thing
end
A slightly different approach would be to replace all calls of double_thing
by calls to @other.double_thing
:
class Other
def double_thing()
thing + thing
end
end
The approach you take will depend on balancing other factors in your code.
SequencingPipeline#is_flowcell_type_consistent_for_batch? calls 'batch.requests.size' 2 times Open
if (batch.requests.size == 0) || (batch.requests.first.request_metadata.nil?)
# No requests selected or the pipeline doesn't contain metadata to check
return true
end
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
Duplication occurs when two fragments of code look nearly identical, or when two fragments of code have nearly identical effects at some conceptual level.
Reek implements a check for Duplicate Method Call.
Example
Here's a very much simplified and contrived example. The following method will report a warning:
def double_thing()
@other.thing + @other.thing
end
One quick approach to silence Reek would be to refactor the code thus:
def double_thing()
thing = @other.thing
thing + thing
end
A slightly different approach would be to replace all calls of double_thing
by calls to @other.double_thing
:
class Other
def double_thing()
thing + thing
end
end
The approach you take will depend on balancing other factors in your code.
SequencingPipeline#is_read_length_consistent_for_batch? calls 'batch.requests.size' 2 times Open
if (batch.requests.size == 0) || (batch.requests.first.request_metadata.nil?)
# No requests selected or the pipeline doesn't contain metadata to check
return true
end
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
Duplication occurs when two fragments of code look nearly identical, or when two fragments of code have nearly identical effects at some conceptual level.
Reek implements a check for Duplicate Method Call.
Example
Here's a very much simplified and contrived example. The following method will report a warning:
def double_thing()
@other.thing + @other.thing
end
One quick approach to silence Reek would be to refactor the code thus:
def double_thing()
thing = @other.thing
thing + thing
end
A slightly different approach would be to replace all calls of double_thing
by calls to @other.double_thing
:
class Other
def double_thing()
thing + thing
end
end
The approach you take will depend on balancing other factors in your code.
SequencingPipeline#is_flowcell_type_consistent_for_batch? calls 'batch.requests' 4 times Open
if (batch.requests.size == 0) || (batch.requests.first.request_metadata.nil?)
# No requests selected or the pipeline doesn't contain metadata to check
return true
end
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
Duplication occurs when two fragments of code look nearly identical, or when two fragments of code have nearly identical effects at some conceptual level.
Reek implements a check for Duplicate Method Call.
Example
Here's a very much simplified and contrived example. The following method will report a warning:
def double_thing()
@other.thing + @other.thing
end
One quick approach to silence Reek would be to refactor the code thus:
def double_thing()
thing = @other.thing
thing + thing
end
A slightly different approach would be to replace all calls of double_thing
by calls to @other.double_thing
:
class Other
def double_thing()
thing + thing
end
end
The approach you take will depend on balancing other factors in your code.
Complex method SequencingPipeline#detach_request_from_batch (21.9) Open
def detach_request_from_batch(batch, request)
request.fail!
# Note that the request metadata also needs to be cloned for this to work.
ActiveRecord::Base.transaction do
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
Flog calculates the ABC score for methods. The ABC score is based on assignments, branches (method calls), and conditions.
You can read more about ABC metrics or the flog tool
SequencingPipeline#on_start_batch doesn't depend on instance state (maybe move it to another class?) Open
def on_start_batch(batch, user)
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
A Utility Function is any instance method that has no dependency on the state of the instance.
SequencingPipeline#post_release_batch doesn't depend on instance state (maybe move it to another class?) Open
def post_release_batch(batch, _user)
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
A Utility Function is any instance method that has no dependency on the state of the instance.
SequencingPipeline#is_flowcell_type_consistent_for_batch? doesn't depend on instance state (maybe move it to another class?) Open
def is_flowcell_type_consistent_for_batch?(batch) # rubocop:todo Metrics/AbcSize
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
A Utility Function is any instance method that has no dependency on the state of the instance.
SequencingPipeline#is_flowcell_type_consistent_for_batch? performs a nil-check Open
if (batch.requests.size == 0) || (batch.requests.first.request_metadata.nil?)
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
A NilCheck
is a type check. Failures of NilCheck
violate the "tell, don't ask" principle.
Additionally, type checks often mask bigger problems in your source code like not using OOP and / or polymorphism when you should.
Example
Given
class Klass
def nil_checker(argument)
if argument.nil?
puts "argument isn't nil!"
end
end
end
Reek would emit the following warning:
test.rb -- 1 warning:
[3]:Klass#nil_checker performs a nil-check. (NilCheck)
SequencingPipeline#detach_request_from_batch doesn't depend on instance state (maybe move it to another class?) Open
def detach_request_from_batch(batch, request)
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
A Utility Function is any instance method that has no dependency on the state of the instance.
SequencingPipeline#is_read_length_consistent_for_batch? performs a nil-check Open
if (batch.requests.size == 0) || (batch.requests.first.request_metadata.nil?)
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
A NilCheck
is a type check. Failures of NilCheck
violate the "tell, don't ask" principle.
Additionally, type checks often mask bigger problems in your source code like not using OOP and / or polymorphism when you should.
Example
Given
class Klass
def nil_checker(argument)
if argument.nil?
puts "argument isn't nil!"
end
end
end
Reek would emit the following warning:
test.rb -- 1 warning:
[3]:Klass#nil_checker performs a nil-check. (NilCheck)
SequencingPipeline#is_read_length_consistent_for_batch? doesn't depend on instance state (maybe move it to another class?) Open
def is_read_length_consistent_for_batch?(batch) # rubocop:todo Metrics/AbcSize
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
A Utility Function is any instance method that has no dependency on the state of the instance.
Similar blocks of code found in 2 locations. Consider refactoring. Open
def is_read_length_consistent_for_batch?(batch) # rubocop:todo Metrics/AbcSize
if (batch.requests.size == 0) || (batch.requests.first.request_metadata.nil?)
# No requests selected or the pipeline doesn't contain metadata to check
return true
end
- Read upRead up
Duplicated Code
Duplicated code can lead to software that is hard to understand and difficult to change. The Don't Repeat Yourself (DRY) principle states:
Every piece of knowledge must have a single, unambiguous, authoritative representation within a system.
When you violate DRY, bugs and maintenance problems are sure to follow. Duplicated code has a tendency to both continue to replicate and also to diverge (leaving bugs as two similar implementations differ in subtle ways).
Tuning
This issue has a mass of 46.
We set useful threshold defaults for the languages we support but you may want to adjust these settings based on your project guidelines.
The threshold configuration represents the minimum mass a code block must have to be analyzed for duplication. The lower the threshold, the more fine-grained the comparison.
If the engine is too easily reporting duplication, try raising the threshold. If you suspect that the engine isn't catching enough duplication, try lowering the threshold. The best setting tends to differ from language to language.
See codeclimate-duplication
's documentation for more information about tuning the mass threshold in your .codeclimate.yml
.
Refactorings
- Extract Method
- Extract Class
- Form Template Method
- Introduce Null Object
- Pull Up Method
- Pull Up Field
- Substitute Algorithm
Further Reading
- Don't Repeat Yourself on the C2 Wiki
- Duplicated Code on SourceMaking
- Refactoring: Improving the Design of Existing Code by Martin Fowler. Duplicated Code, p76
Similar blocks of code found in 2 locations. Consider refactoring. Open
def is_flowcell_type_consistent_for_batch?(batch) # rubocop:todo Metrics/AbcSize
if (batch.requests.size == 0) || (batch.requests.first.request_metadata.nil?)
# No requests selected or the pipeline doesn't contain metadata to check
return true
end
- Read upRead up
Duplicated Code
Duplicated code can lead to software that is hard to understand and difficult to change. The Don't Repeat Yourself (DRY) principle states:
Every piece of knowledge must have a single, unambiguous, authoritative representation within a system.
When you violate DRY, bugs and maintenance problems are sure to follow. Duplicated code has a tendency to both continue to replicate and also to diverge (leaving bugs as two similar implementations differ in subtle ways).
Tuning
This issue has a mass of 46.
We set useful threshold defaults for the languages we support but you may want to adjust these settings based on your project guidelines.
The threshold configuration represents the minimum mass a code block must have to be analyzed for duplication. The lower the threshold, the more fine-grained the comparison.
If the engine is too easily reporting duplication, try raising the threshold. If you suspect that the engine isn't catching enough duplication, try lowering the threshold. The best setting tends to differ from language to language.
See codeclimate-duplication
's documentation for more information about tuning the mass threshold in your .codeclimate.yml
.
Refactorings
- Extract Method
- Extract Class
- Form Template Method
- Introduce Null Object
- Pull Up Method
- Pull Up Field
- Substitute Algorithm
Further Reading
- Don't Repeat Yourself on the C2 Wiki
- Duplicated Code on SourceMaking
- Refactoring: Improving the Design of Existing Code by Martin Fowler. Duplicated Code, p76